ERIC EJ1077897: Reader's Theater: An Alternative Tool to Develop Reading Fluency among Thai EFL Learners

2014·0.27 MB·English

by  ERIC

PASAA
Volume 48
July - December 2014

Reader’s Theater: An Alternative Tool to Develop
Reading Fluency among Thai EFL learners

Panya Lekwilai
Mae Fah Luang University

Abstract

Fluency in reading is critical for becoming a
successful reader and strongly correlates with
reading comprehension. Fluency in reading refers
to appropriate reading speed, accurate word
recognition, appropriate phrasing, and appropriate
expression when reading orally. Reader’s Theater
(RT) is a reading instructional method that requires
readers to read aloud from scripts. It is recognized
as a method that helps develop reading fluency of
L1 and ESL/EFL learners of different levels of
proficiency. RT also incentivizes and persuades
learners to re-read the same text several times.
This paper will explore the benefits of RT as well as
suggestions about how it could be applied as an
alternative tool for fluency instructions in the Thai
EFL context.

Keywords: Reader’s Theater, reading fluency, L2
reading, reading instruction
90 | PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014)

Introduction
Reading is regarded as a complex process which involves
the readers, the text, and the interaction between the reader and
the text (Rumelhart, cited in Aebersold & Field, 2001). Reading
involves not only the linguistic knowledge of the language of the
text, but also the psychology of a reader. In order to construct the
intended meaning of the text, an efficient reader tends to rely on
his/her preconceptions about the language of the text as well as
his/her prior knowledge and past experience related to the text
(Mikulecky, 2008; Aebersold & Field, 2001). The process in which
a reader employs his/her linguistic knowledge to comprehend the
text is called the “bottom-up” process. Conversely, a reader
possesses background knowledge and experience which is brought
upon reading the text (schema). The process in which a reader
approaches the text with his/her schema in order to find a match
with his/her expectations, assumptions, and predictions is called
the “top-down” process. The bottom-up and top-down processes
do not occur independently of each other. Rather, both processes
occur either alternately or simultaneously, depending on the type
of text and the reader’s background knowledge, language
proficiency level, motivation, strategy use, and culturally shaped
beliefs about the reading (Aebersold & Field, 2001).
In 2000, the National Reading Panel, a United States
government body derived from the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD) pin-pointed the five
essential components of reading. These components have been
reported to be beneficial for teaching reading to L1 learners and
ESL/EFL learners alike (Tindall & Nisbet, 2010). These critical
components are: 1) Phonemic awareness: the knowledge of
individual sounds that create words, 2) Phonics: the understanding
of the relationship between symbols (letters) and spoken sounds to
decode words, 3) Vocabulary: the knowledge of words, their
meaning and context, 4) Fluency: the ability to read with
PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014) | 91

appropriate rate, phrasing, accuracy, and expression, and 5)
Comprehension: the understanding of meaning of the text, acquired
by reading strategies (National Reading Panel, 2000; Tindall &
Nisbet, 2010).
Given these components of reading, fluency remains a
foreign concept in many language instructional contexts. While
much traditional reading instruction focuses on word identification
strategies to foster comprehension, fluent reading instruction is
often dismissed by instructors. Despite the fact that fluency was
introduced by Allington back in 1983, it was the National Reading
Panel’s identification of the five reading components that triggered
interest in fluency (Allington, 2006). Recently, researchers agree
that fluency in reading is a key to becoming a successful and
competent reader (Rasinski & Padak, 2000; Taguchi, Takayasu-
Mass & Gorsuch, 2004; Trainin & Andrzejczak, 2006). Among
several instructional strategies used to develop learners’ fluency is
Readers’ Theater (RT).
In Thailand’s EFL situation, fluency is not recognized in
language instruction, which is evident by the absence of research
addressing reading fluency. There are, however, several studies
that focus on strategies to improve reading skills. Nonetheless,
poor reading ability is found in students at all educational levels
from primary schools to universities. Research also found that
even Thai postgraduate students are having difficulties in reading
when they continue their studies abroad (Bell, 2011). The problem
lies upon the fact that Thai EFL students do not frequently read
English texts outside of class. The only time that students read in
English is in the classroom where teachers will direct them to
read, help them make sense of the text, and complete reading
exercises. Some students may eventually manage to comprehend
the text, but they may not be motivated to read any other text
unassigned by teachers, let alone reading English books in their
free time for pleasure. Given that reading is like any other skill
92 | PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014)

that needs practice in order to become fluent, most Thai students
are not fluent readers due to the fact that they lack practice.
This paper will discuss the characteristics and the
importance of fluency, as well as the role of RT as an instructional
method to develop fluency. Finally, a reflection of fluency
instruction and RT application to the Thai EFL reading curriculum
will be discussed.

Fluency and the relationship with comprehension
Like any other skill, reading requires frequent practice so
that a reader can become fluent. Fluency is realized when the task
is done at the level of automaticity. Automaticity refers to speed,
effortlessness, autonomy, and lack of conscious awareness (Logan,
1997). According to Logan (1997), speed is important to automaticity
because it reduces time to react, and it can be increased through
practice. Effortlessness indicates automaticity as tasks can be
done with ease and without interference. Automaticity in tasks is
autonomous; tasks can be done without intention. Lastly, automaticity
does not require conscious awareness of the involved process
while doing it.
Fluency in reading involves automaticity at word level and
automaticity at text level. Automaticity in word recognition occurs
when the reader possesses awareness of components of words
such as letters, sounds and stresses, and is able to read rapidly
and correctly identify words. This is indicated by the reading rate
and accuracy of reading. Automaticity at text level is when the
reader reads with appropriate phrasing and prosody (expression).
Researchers agreed that fluency has a strong correlation
with comprehension (Callard, 2008; Trainin & Andrzejczak, 2006;
Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005; Nation, 2005; Hook & Jones, 2004;
Taguchi, Takayasu-Mass & Gorsuch, 2004; Rasinski & Padak,
2000). First of all, without appropriate reading speed, readers may
exhibit signs of fixation (fixing their eyes on words, parts of words,
PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014) | 93

or individual letters) and regression (looking back at what has
already been read) (Nation, 2009), which are attributes of poor
word recognition skills. Secondly, though readers appear to read
quickly, they may exhibit inappropriate phrasing that affects the
reader in dealing with larger units of words and thus causes
confusion when the reader cannot see the relationship of each
word unit in a sentence (Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005). Lastly,
without appropriate expression or prosodic features present in
reading, it may reflect the reader’s lack of understanding of what
is being read. The latter two are evident of poor text level
automaticity.
It remains inconclusive, however, whether fluency precedes
development of comprehension or it is comprehension that produces
fluency (Applegate, Applegate & Modla, 2009; Keehn, Harmon &
Shoho, 2008; Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005). It is conceivable that
the relationship between fluency and comprehension is reciprocal
rather than uni-directional (Tyler & Chard, 2000). In the light of
the close relationship between the two, many researchers believe
that fluency should not be neglected in reading instruction.
Given the empirical research of the close relationship
between fluency and comprehension, there is a debate about how
to develop fluency, either by oral reading or silent reading
methods, and about which is the best predictor of comprehension.
Supporters of silent reading argue that it is possible for readers to
read the text aloud and fluently and not to comprehend it
(Mikulecky, 2008; Cole, 2004), and moreover that oral reading
may be a distraction impeding comprehension.
Nevertheless, there is little support for these claims, and
there are relatively few studies concerning silent reading fluency at
all. There are, on the other hand, more studies on oral reading.
Since the components of fluency, namely reading speed, accuracy
in word recognition, and phrasing are easier to observe through
reading aloud, and the other component – prosody or expression –
94 | PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014)

can obviously only be assessed by reading aloud, most researchers
may not take silent reading into account for assessing fluency
instruction.
We should, however, note that fluency and comprehension
is a complex dynamic. What is more important is that oral reading
needs to be implemented in reading instruction at the early stages
of learning since it allows the instructor to diagnose and improve
students’ reading fluency in a timely manner. As students’ oral
fluency is developed through time, and the text types they
encounter become various and more complex, silent reading can
be emphasized in reading instruction. Rasinski et al. (2011) stated
that, “although fluency is normally considered within the domain
of oral reading, silent reading fluency [is] a salient concept in
reading.”

How to develop fluency
The idea of developing fluency is better illustrated by the
analogy between a professional musician and a proficient reader.
A musician takes years of practice in order to master an
instrument. She may start practicing an instrument at a young
age and spend several hours a day doing it. Every day she plays
the instrument with a piece of music, and does it repeatedly until
she can play it smoothly. She then moves on to more difficult
notes and spends less time to play smoothly. A proficient reader
reads very frequently and consistently. She may start with books
that are easy to read, and reads them several times before she
chooses books that are more difficult.
This analogy suggests that repeated activity can enhance
fluency. In order to develop fluency in reading, the reader needs
frequent reading practice. Allington (2006) stated that one of the
fundamental problems that a disfluent reader has to face is
limited reading practice. As stated earlier, readers can increase
automaticity in decoding words at sight and become faster at
PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014) | 95

reading through practice. For other aspects of fluency, namely
phrasing and prosodic features, they can be analyzed through oral
reading (Rasinski & Padak, 2000)
Given that the major components of fluency are reading
speed, accuracy, phrasing and prosody, and that fluency is
achieved by substantial amounts of practice, several instructional
strategies are launched to develop these components. Among
those strategies, Repeated Reading (RR) has been researched and
proven to be effective in enhancing reading fluency (Samuels,
1979; Tyler & Chard, 2000; Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005). The
technique is as simple as it sounds: a reader reads a short and
meaningful passage several times until a satisfactory level of
reading rate and word accuracy is reached. The instructor counts
how many words were read (words per minute – WPM), and how
many words were read correctly (correct words per minute –
CWPM) (Samuels, 1979). The technique then repeats again with a
different passage. Tyler and Chard (2000) reported that RR helps a
reader increase reading rate and accuracy and ability to segment
text into meaningful chunks (Dowhower, cited in Tyler & Chard,
2000).
There are, however, opponents to RR that say it may not be
suitable for developing all areas of reading fluency. While RR
appears to focus on increase of reading speed, accurate word
recognition skill, expression, and prosody are not emphasized.
Moreover, some learners may be frustrated by the apparent
absurdity of re-reading the same text over and over, which can
jeopardize their motivation in reading (Tyler & Chard, 2000;
Nation, 2009).
This is when Reader’s Theater (RT) garnered lots of attention
among recent studies of fluency instruction. The reasons are that
RT provides meaningful context for repeated reading practice, and
it has been proven to improve all areas of reading fluency whereas
96 | PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014)

repeated reading does not. Most importantly, RT is a fun activity
that creates motivation and joy to read for students.

What is reader’s theater and how does it work?
RT is an instructional method that requires students to
orally perform reading from scripts. As it is another form of RR, RT
allows students to re-read the text several times for the purposes
of rehearsing. Basically, RT requires students to read a play script
out loud. It works in a similar way to a staged play, except that it
does not require props, costumes, or stage productions. Actors in
RT do not memorize the lines. They simply use scripts and vocal
expression to tell and understand a story (Willcutt, 2007). To
perform for their audience in a comprehensive and entertaining
way, students need to practice reading their parts in the script
several times to make sure that they read fluently enough to be
understood by the audience, and they should be able to read with
appropriate expressions to visualize the imagined props, settings
and actions, and to make their performance entertaining with the
emotions and feelings of the characters.
RT is conducted by the following steps:
1. Text selection: the instructor chooses a script at the
student’s instructional level. Several scripts made
specifically for RT are widely available. Alternatively, the
instructor can adapt his/her own scripts from books
and other literature.
2. Modeling: the instructor reads aloud the script for
students to demonstrate what fluent reading should be
like. If an audio version of the script is available, the
instructor can play it.
3. Discussion: discuss the plot, characters, settings, etc.
with students. Vocabulary and sentence structures can
be discussed as well to ensure comprehension.
PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014) | 97

4. Assign roles: divide students into groups and assign
roles to them. When students are familiar with RT, the
instructor may let them choose their roles.
5. Practice: students practice the role with their peers, and
sometimes practice by themselves. Upon practicing the
script, it will take both silent and oral reading for students.
6. Feedback and comment: after students practice reading
the script aloud, the instructor gives feedback and
comments for improvement.
7. Perform: students stand in front of the class and perform
the script.
RT activities are well-received by researchers and instructors
for a number of reasons. In terms of the relationship with fluency,
RT helps increase reading speed and word accuracy, as it works
the same way as RR. Martinez, Roser and Strecker (2002)
conducted a 10-week RT project with second grade students, and
they found that the second graders increased their reading speed
by 17 words per minute on average. The researchers concluded
that RT offers “an incentive for returning to the text again and
again” (Martinez, Roser & Strecker, 2002) and that it promotes
oral reading fluency. Likewise, Corcoran and Davis (2005) in their
study of second and third grade students with learning disabilities
found that the number of words read correctly per minute
increased substantially after RT instruction. Significant growth in
expression in reading was also observed in the study of Keehn,
Harmon and Shoho (2008). They pointed out that modeling of
prosodic and expressive reading by the teacher during RT
instruction resulted in “more expressive oral reading by students”.
Most significantly, RT fosters comprehension since it
encourages students to be engaged in negotiating the meaning of
the text, exchanging their interpretation of the text, and
generating responses to the text through performance (Liu, 2000).
Studies of RT in both L1 and ESL/EFL classrooms (e.g. Visser &
98 | PASAA Vol. 48 (July - December 2014)

Edge, 2013; Kariuk & Rhymer, 2012; Keehn, Harmon & Shoho,
2008; Patrick, 2008) indicate that comprehension of students
instructed with RT methods increased significantly by comparison
to those who are not instructed with RT.
Apart from the effects on reading fluency, RT has significant
impacts on students’ learning behaviors. Overwhelmingly, the
research consistently agrees that RT is an incentive activity
(Alspach, 2010; Haws, 2008; Martinez, Roser & Strecker, 2002)
that persuades students to enjoy re-reading the same text several
times and creates motivation and confidence in readers (McKay,
2008; Keehn, Harmon & Shoho, 2008; Rinehart, 1999). By
performing reading to an audience, readers automatically feel
engaged to be fluent in order to deliver the message and entertain
the audience at the same time. Moreover, RT supports peer
learning among students. Students with reading disabilities
usually feel intimidated finding themselves dealing with reading
alone. RT allows students to interact with their peers by providing
various roles for a group to share. Hence, it calls for active
participation by all group members as each member is responsible
for each part in the script, and students therefore become more
engaged than they do with other typical reading assignments
(Tyler & Chard, 2000).
Although RT is suitable for both L1 and ESL/EFL students
of all ages and of all levels of proficiency, the majority of research
on RT focuses on young learners from elementary to 12th grade
(and mostly between 2nd to 4th grade). It is possible that it results
in the belief that fluency should be implemented at the early
stages of learning.
There is little research concerning the application of RT to
adult learners and college students. Interestingly, when applying
RT to learners beyond K-12 levels, RT appeared to extend to other
skills such as writing (e.g. Liu, 2000) and communication skills
(e.g. Patrick, 2008). The former study reported that students who